So it’s Week 2 of CCK11 and I’m thinking about Frames (which seem pretty much the same thing as ‘context’ – am I right?). I really enjoyed George Lakoff’s talk – not just because of his magnificent beard, which I am incredibly envious of – and have started watching the full-length version. I’m valuing my background as a biology teacher on this course and it’s great to start to get a sense of the extent to which the sciences connect.
As our general awareness and appreciation of these connections increases, what impact will this have on the frames within which we think and build knowledge? During Martin Weller’s session yesterday, the different frames all the participants were thinking within became very apparent as the backchannel started debating and dissecting the concept of ‘scholarship’. Many of us had highly persistent associations between ‘scholarship’ and, for example, degrees, tuition fees and publication. I realised that I personally see scholarship simply as a commitment to learning that takes many forms. Perhaps I quite enjoy deconstructing associations!
While I was listening to George Lakoff, I recalled a learning experience I had maybe two or three years ago when I was studying for my MA with Jack Whitehead. At the time I found this experience quite frustrating as Jack would link familiar words together into phrases that were quite unfamiliar (e.g. ‘living educational theory’, ‘life-affirming energy’). I hadn’t yet navigated my way into Jack’s Action Research frame.
Initially I’m thinking that frames are going to be a useful way of thinking about different contexts and perspectives. I’m just beginning to get a feel for how the frames of connectivism and network theory dovetail together. More later…